MHB Lebesgue Outer Measure .... Carothers, Proposition 16.1 ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding Proposition 16.1 from N. L. Carothers' "Real Analysis," specifically the adjustments made to the intervals $J_k$ and $I_n$. The author suggests expanding $J_k$ to open intervals and shrinking $I_n$ to closed intervals while maintaining the validity of the proof. A key point is that these alterations preserve the necessary set inclusion and summation inequalities. The proposed method involves adjusting the lengths of the intervals by specific amounts to ensure the inequalities hold true. The conversation highlights the complexity of these adjustments and the importance of careful interval manipulation in real analysis.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading N. L. Carothers' book: "Real Analysis". ... ...

I am focused on Chapter 16: Lebesgue Measure ... ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Proposition 16.1 ...

Proposition 16.1 and its proof read as follows:
Carothers - Proposition 16.1 ... .png

In the above text from Carothers we read the following:

" ... ... But now, by expanding each $J_k$ slightly and shrinking each $I_n$ slightly, we may suppose that the $J_k$ are open and the $I_n$ are closed. ... "Can someone please explain how Carothers is expecting the $J_k$ to be expanded and the $I_n$ to be shrunk ... and further, why the proof is still valid after the $J_k$ and $I_n$ have been altered in this way ... ...
EDIT: My thoughts ...

We could expand each $J_k$ by altering or replacing intervals of the form $(a, b), [a, b)$ and $(a, b]$ by $[a, b]$ ...

This would expand the $J_k$ by one or two points only leaving the length of the intervals unchanged ...

BUT ... we cannot (as Carothers wishes) then suppose the $J_k$ are open ... indeed they would all be closed ... so we have to find another to expand the $J_k$ slightly

A similar problem arises if we shrink the I_n by replacing intervals of the form $[a, b], [a, b)$ and $(a, b]$ by $(a, b)$ ...

Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

This is a sneaky argument made by the author. Let $D = \sum_{n=1}^{N} l(I_{n}) - \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}l(J_{k})>0$. Let $\delta = D/8$. Expand each $J_{k}$ to an open interval, say $J_{k}'$, of length $l(J_{k}) + \delta/2^{k}$ and shrink each $I_{n}$ to a closed interval, say $I_{n}'$, of length $l(I_{n}) - \delta/2^{n}$. Note that this alteration of the intervals preserves the inclusion $\bigcup_{n=1}^{N}I_{n}'\subset \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty}J_{k}'.$ It also preserves the inequality of the summations. Indeed, by the way $\delta$ was chosen, $$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}l(J_{k}') = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}l(J_{k}) + \delta < \sum_{n=1}^{N}l(I_{n}) - \delta =\sum_{n=1}^{N}l(I_{n}) - \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\delta/2^{n} < \sum_{n=1}^{N}\left[l(I_{n})-\delta/2^{n}\right] = \sum_{n=1}^{N}l(I_{n}').$$ Hence, both the set inclusion and the inequality in the summation remain the same, even when the specified alterations are made to $I_{n}$ and $J_{k}$. This is a tricky one, so certainly feel free to let me know if anything is still unclear.

Edit: The length of $I_{n}'$ should be $l(I_{n}) - \delta/2^{n}$. There was a typo in my original post when I wrote $l(I_{n})+\delta/2^{n}$.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for a most helpful reply GJA ...

I would never have seen that without your help!

Indeed, I am still studying and reflecting on your post ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K